US lost 304,000 'jobs' over last two months (Household Survey)

[boedicca]

Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?

Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).

First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.

Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job (and probably still want one). These are called Discouraged Workers.

'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'

Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So, what has, IMO, obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.

Got it now, Bub?

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

E = Employed
U = Unemployed
L = Labor Force
P = Population

L = E + U
Participation rate is L/P

So for your scenario...
1. L1 - L0 = (E1 + U1) - (E0 + U0) = -714,000
2. L1/P1 = .6
3. ???? How are deriving that?

There is no way to calculate the change in either employed or unemployed given only the labor force and labor force participation rate

I used applying the LFPR ratio to the change in E in order to compare it to the 304K drop the OP was using to claim the sky was falling. It was a test of reasonableness. As the calc is higher than the 304K, it shows he was just spinning. If you can't follow the logic, then so be it.

You picked the wrong guy to debate with on this.

Pinqy has claimed numerous times on another board - and I have no factual reason to doubt him - that he used to work for the BLS.

He and I have gotten into more then a few scrapes at each other over the BLS.

But one thing is certain - the guy knows the BLS backwards and forwards.

You sad little moron. I totally owned you yesterday. Your spin of the 304K decline is completely bogus.

 

[McRocket]

Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).

First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.

Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job (and probably still want one). These are called Discouraged Workers.

'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'

Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So, what has, IMO, obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.

Got it now, Bub?

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

E = Employed
U = Unemployed
L = Labor Force
P = Population

L = E + U
Participation rate is L/P

So for your scenario...
1. L1 - L0 = (E1 + U1) - (E0 + U0) = -714,000
2. L1/P1 = .6
3. ???? How are deriving that?

There is no way to calculate the change in either employed or unemployed given only the labor force and labor force participation rate

I used applying the LFPR ratio to the change in E in order to compare it to the 304K drop the OP was using to claim the sky was falling. It was a test of reasonableness. As the calc is higher than the 304K, it shows he was just spinning. If you can't follow the logic, then so be it.

You picked the wrong guy to debate with on this.

Pinqy has claimed numerous times on another board - and I have no factual reason to doubt him - that he used to work for the BLS.

He and I have gotten into more then a few scrapes at each other over the BLS.

But one thing is certain - the guy knows the BLS backwards and forwards.

You sad little moron. I totally owned you yesterday. Your spin of the 304K decline is completely bogus.

LOL...you did not even seem to know the difference between the Household and the Establishment Survey's. Or the fact that most of the headline numbers the MSM quotes from the BLS are Seasonally Adjusted. And that was just the beginning of the things you got TOTALLY wrong.

And your logic - as pinqy (who knows a LOT more about the BLS than I and OBVIOUSLY you do) has factually proven - is entirely erroneous.


So...according to the Household Survey, there were 304,000 less Americans employed in April than in February?

True or False, please?

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

 

[pinqy]

Let’s go back to this:

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+

Stop. What? Let’s put it into math

1. L1 - L0 = (E1 + U1) - (E0 + U0) = -714,000

2. L1/P1 = 0.60

3. ?????? What are you doing here? Please show using the same notation I have: L for labor force, P for population, E for employed, and U for unemployed, with following numbers for time periods

And... the LPFR is 62.8%, down from 63.2% in February.

4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA..

Right...because unemployment dropped 411,000
Change in labor force is (E1 + U1) - (E0 + U0) = (E1 - E0) + (U1 - U0)
E1 - E0 = -304,000
U1 - U0 = -411,000
-304,000 - 411,000 = - 715,000 (one off due to rounding errors)

Where is your 420,000 coming from? What does the LFPR have to do with anything? What does seasonal adjustment have to do with anything?

 

[pinqy]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?

Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).

First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.

Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job (and probably still want one). These are called Discouraged Workers.

'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'

Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So, what has, IMO, obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.

Got it now, Bub?

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

E = Employed
U = Unemployed
L = Labor Force
P = Population

L = E + U
Participation rate is L/P

So for your scenario...
1. L1 - L0 = (E1 + U1) - (E0 + U0) = -714,000
2. L1/P1 = .6
3. ???? How are deriving that?

There is no way to calculate the change in either employed or unemployed given only the labor force and labor force participation rate

I used applying the LFPR ratio to the change in E in order to compare it to the 304K drop the OP was using to claim the sky was falling. It was a test of reasonableness. As the calc is higher than the 304K, it shows he was just spinning. If you can't follow the logic, then so be it.

I’m still not getting how you think “applying the LFPR ratio to the change in E” could possibly be used “to compare it to the 304K drop”
Should I be surprised you haven’t responded to actual math?

 

[MarathonMike]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

You know you're in trouble when even YOU put "lost" jobs in quotes. Something tells me "lost" means retired, quit, furlough, laid off, as well as let go.

 

[Picaro]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

Good. Send 608,000 criminal illegal aliens back home, deport a similar number of Democrats like you to Somalia, and reduce the number of green cards by the same amount, and problem solved.

In any case, in real life stats that count people only employed for one hour a week as 'employed' don't mean squat in the first place. Neither does 'creating 600,000 part time jobs mean a real 'boom' is going on.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Sunni Man, post: 22423706,

Have you ever considered posting the positive aspects of our current economy?

You mean like Fox News reports?

• Stocks slump to 3 month lows, bonds rally, as recession fears rise with trade war Published May 29, 2019StocksFOXBusines
  
  China could target crucial rare earth minerals as trade war escalates
  By Megan HenneyPublished May 29, 2019Trade WarFOXBusiness

And this:

• JP Morgan slashes second-quarter GDP forecast to just 1% - CNBC.com 6 days ago · J.P. Morgan economists say they now see a much slower economy in the second quarter, with growth of just 1%.

The economy will never see annual GDP at 3%. under TrumpO. So by GDP standard there is no difference between the TrumpO economy and Obama’s.

Do you or did you ever post about the positive aspects of the Obama economy?

 

[keepitreal]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

Well, KMart closed, Toys R Us, Sears, Payless,
Family Dollar closed over 100 stores
and plans to close 200 more

I believe Borders folded too

Amazon and Walmart...just saying

 

[keepitreal]

Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?

Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).

First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.

Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job (and probably still want one). These are called Discouraged Workers.

'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'

Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So, what has, IMO, obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.

Got it now, Bub?

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

Hello...Earth to ignoramus?
The ENTIRE CHART AND ALL THE HEADLINE DATA from the BLS IS SEASONALLY ADJUSTED.

The unemployment rate AND the jobs numbers in the headlines are ALL Seasonally Adjusted.

DUH.

See this headline number?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/nonfarm-payrolls-april-2019.html

It's from this chart which is - you guessed it - Seasonally Adjusted.

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

Learn to do math.

You learn what terms mean before you open your mouth and you will not look SOOOO ignorant.

Here is the nonsense you posted:

'1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+'

The Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. The LFPR has NOTHING to do with the number of employed.

It's not 62.8% of the of the civilian labor force decrease. It's 62.8% of the civilian noninstitutional population. Jeez.

Do the math...62.8% of 258,693,000 is 162,459,204...which is almost exactly what the total number of the civilian labor force (162,470,000).
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

It’s Obama’s economy

 

[Picaro]

Sunni Man, post: 22423706,

Have you ever considered posting the positive aspects of our current economy?

You mean like Fox News reports?

• Stocks slump to 3 month lows, bonds rally, as recession fears rise with trade war Published May 29, 2019StocksFOXBusines
  
  China could target crucial rare earth minerals as trade war escalates
  By Megan HenneyPublished May 29, 2019Trade WarFOXBusiness

And this:

• JP Morgan slashes second-quarter GDP forecast to just 1% - CNBC.com 6 days ago · J.P. Morgan economists say they now see a much slower economy in the second quarter, with growth of just 1%.

The economy will never see annual GDP at 3%. under TrumpO. So by GDP standard there is no difference between the TrumpO economy and Obama’s.

Do you or did you ever post about the positive aspects of the Obama economy?

Glutted markets, continuing decline in disposable incomes in the !st World, while all the noise about 'globalism' creating vast numbers of new consumers has proven to be nothing but typical Wall Street bullshit; has nothing to do with your TDS ravings. Cant' fix the damage done by international labor racketeers overnight; it takes a few years, and in any case all of that is simply very tiny potatoes in view of the trillions in trade deficits that have plundered the American economy for decades now while the rent seekers and financial sectors bled the world economy dry.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Picaro, post: 22462947

......nothing to do with your TDS ravings.

You are clearly full of shit because I am merely stating the clear fact that TrumpO and Obama have exactly the same GDP average at 2.9%.

Why is it a deranged raving to insist that TrumpOroids such as yourself quit the fake story that TrumpO is so great in the economy and Obama was a disaster.

Learn to respect facts instead of giving us nothing but your rightwing bullshit that opposition to TrumpO is some kind of deranged syndrome.

That’s all I am asking here.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Picaro, post: 22462947

Cant' fix the damage done by international labor racketeers overnight; it takes a few years,

TrumpO is the President of the United States who in December 2017 said he sees no reason
his economic policies would go to 6% GDP.

What is an international labor racketeer.

How’s come TrumpO and his advisers does not know what you know?

Why do you put up with his economic bullshit and all the rest of it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

keepitreal, post: 22462732

It’s Obama’s economy

Yes the economy was doing quite well under Obama. It’s doing well under TrumpO.

The problem is TrumpO worshippers believe TrumpO has vastly improved the economy.

It’s TrumpO’s tax cuts that helping to add up to Trillion dollar Federal budget deficits.

 

[Jitss617]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

Give me a name

 

[NotfooledbyW]

keepitreal, post: 2246273

It’s Obama’s economy

It not Obama’s trade war is it?

One of Wall St.’s premier investors says S&P 500 may tumble 16% by summer’s end because markets never ‘had a trade war like this’
By Mark DeCambre
Published: May 30, 2019 4:15 pm ET

One of Wall St.’s premier investors says S&P 500 may tumble 16% by summer’s end because markets never ‘had a trade war like this’

Keeping it real.

 

[Sunni Man]

Keeping it real.

Yea, real dumb. ..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Sunni Man, post: 22467451,

Yea, real dumb.

What is dumb?

 

[keepitreal]

keepitreal, post: 22462732

It’s Obama’s economy

Yes the economy was doing quite well under Obama. It’s doing well under TrumpO.

The problem is TrumpO worshippers believe TrumpO has vastly improved the economy.

It’s TrumpO’s tax cuts that helping to add up to Trillion dollar Federal budget deficits.

ROFLMFAO

Vying for the coveted title of Supreme Idiot

 

[NotfooledbyW]

keepitreal, post: 22468802

ROFLMFAO

What is so funny?

Have you been brainwashed into believing that TrumpO’s 2.9% GDP in 2018 is a GREAT improvement over Obama’s 2.9% in 2015 which TrumpO said during the 2016 campaign was a failure?

 

[pinqy]

keepitreal, post: 22468802

ROFLMFAO

What is so funny?

Have you been brainwashed into believing that TrumpO’s 2.9% GDP in 2018 is a GREAT improvement over Obama’s 2.9% in 2015 which TrumpO said during the 2016 campaign was a failure?

Maybe she believes Trump that the Unemployment rate was really 28, 29, 35, or 42% in 2016 and then instantly dropped to 4.7% once Trump took office.